>
>Christopher_Martin GORDON wrote in message
><6i6crl$l1p$1@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>...
>>It isn't called the millennium bub as the next millennium doesn't start
>till
>>1st Jan 2001. The offical name is "Y2K Bug" meaning "Year 2000"
>
>
>
>This should start an argument. I agree with you.
>
I don't like arguments so I will finish this one (hopfully) before
one starts. The following a extract of an article my boss found on the
web site of the Royal Greenwich Observatory who I understand 'control'
offical time and date keeping.
Millennia.
A millennium is a period of 1000 years. The question of which year is
the first year of the millennium hinges on the date of the first year
AD.
Unfortunately the sequence of years going from BC to AD does not
include a Year 0. The sequence of years runs 3 BC, 2 BC, 1 BC, AD 1,
AD 2, AD 3 etc. This means that the first year of the first
millennium was 1 AD. The one thousandth year was AD 1000 and the
first day of the second millennium was AD 1001.
It is thus clear that the start of the new millennium will be 1 Jan
2001.
Celebrations.
The year AD 2000 will certainly be celebrated, as is natural for a
year with such a round number but, accurately speaking, we will be
celebrating the 2000th year or the last year of the millennium, not
the start of the new millennium. Whether this will be an excuse for
more celebrations in the following year will have to be seen!
Produced by the Information Services Department of the Royal
Greenwich Observatory.
--------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Wright, Sydney, soon to be Canberra, Australia
ajwright@ozemail.com.au
www: http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ajwright
---------------------------------------------------------